Menu

We try so hard to make a good impression, don’t we? No one enjoys a disapproving audience. We dress well, hide our inner turmoil, and smile. We comb our hair, clean our clothes, and wash pretty often. Why do we care so much about the opinion of onlookers?

The simple answer: because it was historically dangerous to be unattractive, unsuccessful, and unliked; dangerous to survival and damaging to our chances of finding a mate. Most importantly, those historical facts continue to influence how we live today. They have major implications for the type of person we seek in a partner; why we compete in business and games; why loneliness feels so terrible and why personal insecurities are widespread. Let me explain.

Evolutionary psychologists think about us in terms of the qualities that enabled our survival through thousands of years. Of course, our long process of descent from prehistoric ancestors required them to complete two missions: staying alive until sexual maturity and making babies who lived beyond them. Whatever innate preoccupations and skills enabled early humans to meet these two criteria were passed down in their genes as part of the never-ending chain of life, like a relay race in which the baton has now been given to us. The inborn talents or defects of those who didn’t survive didn’t get handed off. Those folks aren’t our ancestors.

Now, you may be saying, OK, but I’m pretty smart and I make my own decisions. I don’t need to be like people who lived in caves and wore animal skins.

Not so fast. Think about anger. It helped our forefathers defend against attack by enemies and hungry carnivores. You live with their capacity to defend yourself. And some of us blow-up at those we love, commit murder, and make war.

Or let’s say you are a guy. Remember back to your childhood when girls were yucky? Then one day you had an erection. I doubt this was a well-reasoned and much-desired gift you put on your Christmas list — unless your parents were more liberal than mine, that is. Not everything you do is a matter of thoughtful choice, unmotivated by Mother Nature.

We are wired to survive and to mate with a member of the opposite sex who is capable of producing and supporting a new life. So whom do we choose? A woman at the dawn of human existence had to be especially concerned with finding a man who could defend her and provide for her when she was pregnant and vulnerable. Evolutionary researchers believe several qualities signaled such ability: physical strength, intelligence, stamina, the capacity to work in groups, leadership, etc. Thus, when a woman is in the market for a man rather than a fling, she is influenced by her ancestors’ inherited tendency to find one who can make a living and create a safe residence. Yes, I know women are no longer uniformly dependent on men, but the ladies’ genes didn’t receive the memo.

What about physical appearance? Women notice handsome men as much as men recognize the beauty of the fair sex. Unlike men, however, who place physical appearance at the top of their wish list, attractiveness is further down her tally of desired attributes in a permanent sexual partner. Why? Again, because of the historic vulnerability of women carrying and bearing their children. A female can only afford to be picky about noble features and hot bodies if she has a choice among men who first can accomplish the things she and her future children will need. Thus, a lady cannot allow the luxury of opting for surface qualities over those more essential to her safety and her child’s well-being.

Men are more likely to be motivated by just one thing: a healthy and fertile appearance (which is correlated with youth and beauty). Nature permits them to indulge themselves because the physical cost of producing a child will be borne by their partner. As the famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow said, “There is no such thing as justice — in or out of court.”

Of course, few of us think about these things when we are on the prowl. Remember, too, I am simplifying the story for the sake of brevity.

Now, on to the origins of insecurity. Competition is built into the system. Should you want the most attractive female (the best potential mom in evolutionary terms or the hottest mama in your feverish dreams) you must stand out from the crowd of other men in some way suggestive of your superior ability to be a provider. Thus, men have historically tried to make lots of money (even more than necessary to live), achieve high status, display their excellence in the performance of an activity (business or sports) and impress with their intellect and cleverness. Men size up the competition to get the best of them. Insecurity — the preoccupation with where you stand in the pecking order — necessarily follows.

Females compete for males as well. The cosmetics and fashion industries thrive on the genetically fixed desire to catch the eye of a husband. Again, however, when out shopping you aren’t likely to think, “those jeans will improve my chances of getting my genes into the next generation.” Instead, you say to yourself, “Wow, those jeans look good on me.” Only people like me think of genes, not jeans. And, if you repeat similar questions often enough — what looks good on me, what doesn’t, how do I compare with the others — the insecure background of one’s thought becomes the norm.

Earlier I said it has been historically dangerous to be unattractive, unsuccessful, and unliked. If humans of antique times couldn’t find a sufficiently enterprising and healthy sex partner, that person’s genetic line would end. Those who didn’t make friends found their chances of survival on their own were poor. Thus, whether looking for a mate or a group affiliation to increase their odds (against other tribes, animals, and nature) they needed sensitivity to any word, expression, element of body language, or deed signaling another person’s disinterest, dislike, or disaffection from them; in addition to those indicators communicating they were welcome or pleasing to the crowd. Unfortunately, the ability to determine how they were coming across to others required a preoccupation with other people’s opinions: a recipe for insecurity and self-consciousness. Those who didn’t care how they were being received didn’t hand down their genes successfully.

How does loneliness fit in? A soul contented in his isolation didn’t mate. Women and men satisfied just with the company of their sexual partner reduced their chances of survival compared to couples who had alliances with others. Individuals who were happy when alone, therefore, didn’t pitch their genes forward into the next generation. Men and women discontented when by themselves, however, would have wanted to join up with other creatures. Since group participation increased the chance of surviving, procreating, and raising a child, their unhappiness when separated from humans is a quality we now have: it motivated them to take an action useful to staying alive.

There are other factors beyond evolution influencing you today. Your upbringing, your own life experiences, and the individual set of incidental personality traits nature handed to you. But, back there somewhere is the long reach of the instincts that survived the evolutionary relay race. The ways in which we react, think, and act are more determined by the successful tendencies of our ancestors than (I suspect) most of us consider or believe.

In short, having a mind drawn to thoughts of both friends and strangers comes naturally. Our preoccupation with status and money, even though it can create misery, is a quality that long ago began to improve the chance of survival and is still in us. We operate according to a program written by nature on the men and women who lived here an eternity before we jumped out of mom’s womb.

The aim of evolution was never to make us happy. We can only challenge ourselves to deal with the insecurities and preoccupations it deposited in our genes. Those instincts don’t always work well in a world that, for the most part, is much different and safer than the natural state of man’s life, described by Thomas Hobbes as “nasty, brutish, and short.”

In our search for satisfaction we must grapple with a biology that often makes us discontented and wary, replicating what our ancestors did to live. Understanding this gives us a better chance of remaking ourselves the best we can to suit not their time — but ours.

—

The top image is Toilette der Venus by Peter Paul Rubens. The second painting is The Persistent Suitor by Frederico Andreotti. The cartoon was created by Welleman and is called Lonely Guy, Shadow as Friend. All come from Wikimedia Commons.

13 thoughts on “Insecurity and Our Preoccupation with Appearances”

Dr. Stein, thanks for another one of your insightful and thought-provoking articles. Of special interest was your comment: “The aim of evolution was never to make us happy.” This is an important reminder, especially at this time in our evolution when we face the possibility of our own self-extinction. As you make clear, evolution is all about survival.

Somewhere along the way, we got sucked up in our pursuit of individual happiness. Survival was kicked to the back of the theater of life.

Thank you, Rosaliene. I was hoping some of the readers would see that there might be further implications. I think it is important, as we think about evolution, to realize that it fostered the right adaptations for our survival at an individual level throughout our history. While the basic stuff of our biology hasn’t changed much in a while, our technology has, and so has the physical state of the world we live in (the environment). In the past each person could be intent upon the success of his own personal mission to mate and procreate without damaging the long term prospects of our planetary home for others. Now, for the first time in our history, our actions imperil that home and the possibility of life for future generations. As you’ve pointed out, the innate human striving puts us in danger of defeating the evolutionary success that has made homo sapiens, for a time, master of the planet. Your own website today offers a wonderful interview of Gaia Vince describing our dilemma and offering some reason for hope that we will adapt to the conditions we have created and save not only the planet, but benefit the lives of the generations who succeed us: https://rosalienebacchus.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/dot-earth/

Such a process would be wonderful if it could be demonstrated scientifically. I’ve seen nothing of this in the current literature within well-respected scientific journals. It is important to remember that evolution operates at the level of individuals: one is more fit than another and survives because of that fitness, not as a simultaneous or collective group process. Whatever is in his genes is passed on a child at a time. Therefore evolution occurs slowly, inch by inch, generation by generation, unless there is some sort of mass disaster that is survived only by a few who possess the personal biology needed to live (while the others and their genes perish). I suspect some might also say that the current state of the world doesn’t suggest we are in the midst of anything resembling the growth of unity and love. Again, I wish it were otherwise. Best wishes and thanks for your comment.

Interesting post, but dare I ask where this leaves gay, lesbian, queer, asexual individuals? Also, guys aren’t the only ones who experience confusing arousal during puberty. I’ve enjoyed some of your previous posts, but this one struck me as a bit narrow minded.

Glad you asked the question and sorry this post didn’t satisfy. Those who can’t reproduce present a problem in terms of an evolutionary explanation. They don’t fit neatly into the picture. Obviously, their own genes can’t be passed directly to another generation, except to the extent that they might support the survival of a brother or sister or niece or nephew who has some of the same genetic makeup and whose genes can be passed on. There is also conjecture that the good people you mention provide a sexual avenue that is useful to survival of the members of a group indirectly. The idea is that our ancestors benefited in social groups that stayed unified despite the fact that there were not enough opposite sex partners to go around. The presence of those who could find mates among available members of the same sex might have led to a reduction in conflict within the group and thereby increased the chances of survival of some of its members. I’d add that one of the things that nature does randomly is to generate diversity — different adaptations. It is always doing so. When some new feature of an organism makes it more “fit,” it tends to result in greater numbers as that genetic quality is passed on by reproduction. All the different forms of sexual diversity we see might be thought of in this way, as part of the diversity that nature is forever creating. Still, as I said, the people who think about evolution professionally haven’t come up with a fully satisfying answer, any more than they have one for people who run into burning buildings to save the lives of strangers. If you die in the effort, your genes don’t benefit. Thanks for commenting.

Broadly speaking, here are some ideas: 1. Ask yourself why you are insecure. 2. If there are early life issues that have contributed to your insecurity and they remain emotionally unresolved, they need to be addressed. 3. If there are challenging situations about which you have been avoidant, you may need to gradually take them on and prove to yourself you are worthy. 4. If your insecurity is associated with anxiety, there are good cognitive behavioral treatments. 5. Mindfulness meditation can help get you out of self-consciousness, but it is not an easy thing to do. 6. Consider therapy. Hope this is of some help.

I really enjoyed reading this and the discussions that followed. It’s interesting how evolutionary theory does not care about humans’ insecurities and happiness factors. This makes me wonder if evolutionary psychologists get along with clinical psychologists.

Interesting question. I imagine that unless they are versed in basic evolutionary thought, the therapists might attribute too much to an individual’s personal inclinations and choices rather than the inheritance of tens of thousands of years of evolution that made him and all of us.

Welcome!

In addition to psychology, you'll also find me musing on baseball, classical music, love, friendship, how we live, and how best to live. I'll tell a few stories and draw a few conclusions.
I hope that some tales will touch you and others help you to look at yourself and the world anew. Thanks for reading (and thinking) along with me! Your comments are most welcome.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.